US v. Williams, No. 05-4110 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4110 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-04-644) Submitted: October 25, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Williams appeals his conviction and twenty-five month prison sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of accepting bribes as a public official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (2000). The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in applying an eight-level offense level enhancement at sentencing based on its finding that Williams held a high-level decision-making or sensitive position, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2C1.1(b)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record, decision, and the parties briefs. the district court s We conclude that Williams, the director of a halfway house, was an official holding a high-level decision-making or sensitive position, and thus the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961, 970 (4th Cir. See United States v. 1995); see also United States v. Reneslacis, 349 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Snell, 152 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, sentence. we affirm Williams s conviction and We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
